"Certainly this does have shades of
Solyndra. We have seen this company's
stock plummeting for months and months –
years actually – and what does the US
Department of Agriculture (USDA) do but
give this company money?", said Colin
O'Neil, a policy analyst at theCentre
for Food Safety, which opposesGMsalmon.

"This is research that any public
university or independent institution
could be doing, so why is the USDA
funding this interested company to do
it?" he said.

"Based on what we are seeing we believe
we will have an approval by end of this
year but we plan for all contingencies,"
he said.

He said the company had prospectivefishfarmers
lined up for the GM salmon in South
Dakota, West Virginia, Wisconsin and
Ohio. "We have people in theUnited
Stateswho
are interested in growing these fish
right now."

If approved, the salmon would be the
first modified animal to make its way
into the food chain, clearing the way
for an entire menagerie of redesigns,
from fast-growing trout and tilapia to
the "enviro-pig", genetically altered to
produce less polluting poo.

The USDA said it had followed the proper
procedures in making the grant from the
National Institute of Food and
Agriculture (NIFA) – including a review
of AquaBounty's financial information.

"On this particular grant, our
procedures did call for the company to
submit two years of financial
information, including annual reports,
tax forms, and other miscellaneous
information. AquaBounty has provided
this information for the grant they were
awarded this year and are in compliance
with all NIFA requirements for funding,"
the USDA spokeswoman wrote in an email.

She said NIFA reviewed 58 biotech
research proposals before announcing the
grants to AquaBounty and other
companies.

GM salmon, originally devised by
researchers at Newfoundland's Memorial
University, combine a growth hormone
gene from the Chinook salmon, the
largest variety in the Pacific, with a
strip of DNA from the ocean pout, an
eel-like animal that lives in extremely
cold water.

Normally, the gene ensures the pout does
not freeze to death. In the case of GM
salmon, it ensures the growth hormone
gene is switched on continuously for a
non-stop growth spurt. The GM salmon
grow up to six times as fast as the
conventional variety.

The company plans to grow the modified
salmon eggs at a lab in Prince Edward
Island, and then fly them to Panama
where they will be raised an inland fish
farms. They would then be shipped back
for sale in the US.

The use of inland fish farms is designed
to prevent the salmon for escaping into
the wild. The company says 98% of the
fish are sterile.

The grant to AquaBounty, though just a
fraction of the $500m loan guarantee to
the bankrupt solar company, comes at a
time when the Obama administration is on
the defensive when it comes to its
handling of energy and environmental
projects.

Emails released by the White House
suggest that Obama fundraisers
influenced the decision to fund
Solyndra.

In the case of AquaBounty, campaigners
argue there is a conflict of interest in
funding research on GManimalsby
companies designing those animals.

As with other biotech companies,
government grants have been crucial for
AquaBounty's survival. Over the years,
it has received some $3m from the US
government and some $6m in funds from
Canadian government.

"My sense is that they have been waiting
years and years for something they could
actually sell," said Patty Lovera,
assistant director ofFood
and Water Watchwhich
opposes GM salmon.

Stotish acknowledged the importance of
government support. "It is true that we
don't have unlimited funds," he said.
"We are a small company so these grants
are important to us."

The company'sinterim
financial report, issued on 23
September, just five days before the
grant announcement, records a net
operating loss of $2.8m for the first
six months of this year, $500,000 more
than the previous year. "Current
balances are sufficient to take the
company into Q2 2012," the report says.

It adds: "The board is conscious however
that the company's cash resources will
need to be supplemented early in 2012."

The company's last round of fundraising
in late 2010 saw Bendukidze take about
48% ownership with an investment of
about $5m madethrough
his investment firm Linnaeus Capital.
The next largest owner is the Chilean
investor, Alejandro Weinstein.

Stotish said the firm was looking to
raise money again to take it beyond the
first quarter of 2012. Even if the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) does sign
off on AquaBounty, the company will
still have to wait for approvals from
the Canadian government to grow the fish
eggs on a commercial basis, and from the
Panamanian government.

There are no guarantees the FDA will
approve GM salmon in the immediate
future. A year ago, AquaBounty thought
it was finally entering the end game
afterthe
FDA said the fish was safe for human
consumptionand
did not pose a threat to the environment
– but then the process unaccountably
stalled.

"They are still not in the home stretch
even if there is FDA approval," O'Neil
said.

17:42/03. OBAMA ADMINISTRATION
BAILS OUT FRANKENFISH FIRM: The
Obama Administration apparently
awarded a research grant to the
financially strapped company working
to put genetically modified (GM)
salmon on American dinner tables,
overlooking disclosures that the
firm could run out of cash in early
2012.

Campaigners say the $500,000 grant
to AquaBounty company amounts to a
bail-out for the firm's main
investor, the business tycoon and
former Economics Minister of
Georgia, Kakha Bendukidze. It is
being compared to the Solyndra
controversy, which saw a solar
company go bankrupt after receiving
government loan guarantees.
"Certainly this does have shades of
Solyndra. We have seen this
company's stock plummeting for
months and months – years actually –
and what does the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) do but give this
company money?" said Colin O'Neil, a
policy analyst at the Centre for
Food Safety, which opposes GM
salmon. "This is research that any
public university or independent
institution could be doing, so why
is the USDA funding this interested
company to do it?" he said.

The grant, awarded last month, comes
at a critical juncture for
AquaBounty. After $67 million and 16
years' waiting, the Food and Drug
Administration could pronounce GM
salmon fit for human consumption
within weeks, the company's Chief
Executive, Ronald Stotish, said.
"Based on what we are seeing we
believe we will have an approval by
end of this year but we plan for all
contingencies," he said.

If approved, the AquaBounty
genetically engineered salmon would
be the first genetically modified
animal to make its way into the U.S.
food chain, potentially clearing the
way for an entire menagerie of
redesigns, from fast-growing trout
and tilapia to the "enviro-pig.” The
company plans to grow the modified
salmon eggs at a lab in Prince
Edward Island, and then fly them to
Panama where they will be raised in
inland fish farms. They would then
be shipped back for sale in the U.S.
However, the Canadian government has
admitted it can not fully protect
wild fish stocks in Canada from GM
salmon, according to documents this
week obtained by the Vancouver
Sun. For more information check
out the 18 October article from
The Guardian:
www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/18/gm-salmon-aquabounty.

01 August
2011: 38
Agricultural
organizations have
signed a letter to
Congressional
Leaders urging them
to allow the Food
and Drug
Administration (FDA)
to complete its
review of the
world’s first
genetically
engineered fish for
human consumption.

The move follows
a recent amendment
to the Agriculture
Appropriations Bill
(HR2112) that would
stop the FDA from
spending
appropriated funds
to finalize its
review of the fish.

AquaBounty
Technologies
AquaAdvantage
Atlantic salmon
includes a gene from
the faster growing
Pacific Chinook
salmon, which
enables it to reach
maturity twice as
quickly as standard
Atlantic salmon.

In the letter
addressed to John
Boehner, Nanci
Pelosi, Harry Reid
and Mitch Mc
Connell, the authors
call on Congress to
reject the
amendment, which was
approved by voice on
June 15th with only
a handful of the
House of
Representatives in
attendance.

Science-based review
should not be
subject to political
intervention

Here it might
be prudent to point
out that 2 of the
signatories are the
American Meat
Institute and the
Biotechnology
Industry
Organization (BIO).

The
letter states: “
Preventing
regulators from
completing their
assessments will
dent the credibility
of the FDA’s
science-based
approval process”.
The authors of this
not so subtle letter
go on to say: “ We
do not write to
support or oppose
this specific
application, but
rather to register
our concern with the
House’s action,
which, if allowed to
become law, would
disrupt the FDA’s
congressional
mandate to base its
assessment of human,
and animal drugs,
devices, vaccines
and process
applications on the
best available
science”. Here it
may be prudent to
let the reader know
that the rDNA used
to genetically
engineer the fish is
to be reviewed by
the FDA as a “New
Animal Drug” or
NAD! (More on
this later)

The authors then
go on to cite
comments from Dr
Calestous Juma of
Harvard’s Kennedy
School of
Government, which
were made at a
recent hearing on
agricultural
biotechnology: “It
is not this
particular fish that
is at stake. It is
the principle behind
the amendment and
its wider
ramifications. It
sends the message to
the rest of the
world that that the
science based
regulatory oversight
as embodied in the
FDA review process
is subject to
political
intervention”. (You
don’t say! MOST
definitely more on
this later)

Politicians have to
play the hand that
they are dealt

The
amendment to block
the approval process
was proposed by
House Republican Don
Young from Alaska
who had concerns
that the transgenic
salmon could
threaten wild salmon
populations, a
concern that has
been denied by
AquaBounty. Speaking
in the House on June
15th Young said, “It
is crucially
important we
understand that this
should not be
allowed, for the FDA
to say, okay, a
genetically raised
salmon – I call it a
Frankenstein fish, –
should never be
allowed in our
markets”. He was
backed by others who
claimed the fish
could have ”grave,
unintended
consequences on
human health.
Preliminary studies
show that the
compounds in
genetically
engineered salmon
may be linked to
cancer and severe
drug allergies“. And
yet another who said
“Because genetically
engineered salmon
are more sexually
aggressive and
resistant to
environmental
toxins, their escape
would pose a
catastrophic threat
to wild salmon
populations”.
(Clearly SOME in the
House take the time
to read their memo’s
after all!)

Congressman
Jack Kingston was
the lone voice who
urged the House to
allow the FDA to
make a science-based
assessment, saying:
“We’re constantly
getting on the FDA
to use more sound
science, less
politics, have more
transparency, and it
appears that that’s
what they’re doing
here. And they may
come out against
genetically modified
salmon, but they are
just looking at it
right now to
determine”. (Clearly
this man hates
salmon)

Needless to say
the House passed the
amendment, (albeit
on the technicality
of not spending
appropriated funds)
effectively stopping
the FDA from
conducting the
revue. So, without
actually opening the
Genetically Modified
Can of “Worms” (to
catch the fish
with!) they took the
easier way out, the
temporary fix, but
thank you, the fish
was effectively
contained. For then,
for now. (more on
this later)

Jim Greenwood,
chief executive of
BIO warned that
interfering with the
regulatory process
in this way would
also set a dangerous
precedent. “
Disrupting FDA’s
science-based
assessment process
based on
non-scientific
political concerns
would set a
dangerous precedent
in our country. It
is critical that the
scientific experts
who work within the
FDA be allowed to
conduct
comprehensive
scientific approvals
without political
influence”.

Ronald Stotish

Ronald Stotish,
CEO of AquaBounty is
clearly frustrated
by what he terms”
The intervention of
politicians in the
regulatory process”
and goes on to
accuse the senators
of trying to derail
the approval of his
transgenic fish and
of “willfully
ignoring
science-based
research and
spreading
misinformed
paranoia”. He rails
on: “The data is out
there, although it
has been ignored by
all of the opposing
groups – the FDA has
already concluded
that there is no
food safety or
environmental risk.
But a science based
review is being
threatened by
political
shenanigans”. (My
goodness man, hold
yourself together!
Just a moment, did
you just say that
the FDA has “already
concluded”…? Did you
just use the word
“science”, again?
More on this later
folks)

AquaBounty claims
that the transgenic
salmon are sterile,
exclusively female
and unable to breed
even if they do
escape into the
wild.

Subsequently
though, an insider
source has admitted
that up to 5% are
NOT sterile…….

AquaBounty CEO
Stotish uses the
words
“science-based” and
“already” an awful
lot for someone who
has in excess of
$150 million riding
on an as yet
UN-reviewed (
according to both
AquaBounty AND the
FDA) assessment of
this frankly fishy
smelling New Animal
Drug, don’t you
think?

And lastly,
(before I talk about
the actual data on
the fishy
application) there
is this gem from the
FDA, based on it’s
analysis of the
AquaBounty
technology published
last September: “The
food from
AquaVantage Salmon
that is the subject
of this application
is as safe as food
from conventional
Atlantic Salmon….In
addition, no effects
on stocks of wild
salmon are
expected“. (Now HOW
would they know
this? Isn‘t this
whole whine about
the issue exactly
because the FDA
hasn‘t the means to
take a closer look
at this “
transgenicfrankenfishsalmoneelthing”
!?)

Gasp! Clearly the
FDA sees absolutely
no problems with
this fish, this
concept or the new
animal drug
itself…..without
having formally seen
the paperwork! Based
upon the
“technology“, the
FDA has clearly made
up it’s collective
“Scientific Mind”
about this in
advance of the
“scientific approval
process ” so
lamented as being
“obstructed” by lone
voice in the House
Jack Kingston!

Now:This
assessment of a
genetically
engineered salmon is
the FIRST ever
evaluation of a GE
animal and will set
the precedent for
future approvals of
GE animals. The FDA
should be most
especially cognizant
of the scientific
quality of the data
and the rigor of the
analysis needed to
do a proper safety
assessment of GE
animals in this
case. (Clearly they
are not!)

FDA
has set the bar very
low indeed

There is sloppy
science,
excruciatingly small
sample sizes (only 6
fish per group for
the allergenicity
study), indeed the
allergin test
methodology was SO
broad as to be
statistically
irrelevant, and so
brief as to appear
more of an
afterthought than
any part of an
actual process,
irrelevant or
otherwise!
Questionable
practices of data
manipulation
(incomplete
information/
conflicting
information with
regard to the IGF-1
data) and
desperately
inadequate analysis
of conclusions of
growth hormone
levels in the flesh
of the fish due to
NO data at all on
growth hormones due
to the use of
insensitive test
methodology! And my
personal favorite:
the part of the
study that dealt
with phenotypic
characterization
data, along with all
nutrient and food
safety assessment
data was based on
the SIX fish at the
PEI facility, NOT in
the Panama facility,
(as per the
documentation) where
they expect to raise
these little genetic
mutations. Indeed,
even AquaBounty
acknowledges in the
report that the
factors related to
the two different
locations on the
“AquaVantage
phenotype is
unknown!” Therefore
the FDA seems
willing to conclude
that there will be
NO animal or human
problems OR safety
concerns with Aqua
frankenfishsalmoneelthing
raised in Panama, or
in Canada where it
is rumored they may
set up shop too,
down the road.

*Since
this data was
released it has been
announced that
Canada will be the
egg producing
capitol of
transgenicfrankenfishsalmoneelthings,
with NO preemptive
oversight from the
FDA.

And this
assessment on
safety, (or lack
thereof) by the FDA
is based on….(?) NO
DATA at all !!!!
Unacceptable. The
FDA MUST demand data
on GE salmon
produced under the
SAME husbandry and
rearing conditions
as the salmon they
expect to present to
the public for
consumption.

In no way
possible at all does
this analysis
conform to the FDA
standard for
assessment of a New
Animal Drug (NAD).

The FDA requires
NAD’s to be shown to
be safe for animals,
humans and the
environment. This
has NOT been shown
for the GE salmon.
What HAS been shown
despite the woefully
incomplete data has
raised legitimate
concerns about the
potential for
serious human health
issues, namely the
increased risk of
allergenic potency
and the continued
exposures of the
general population
to an additional
hormone mimicking
byproduct of this
transgenicfrankenfishsalmoneelthing.

The study fell
flat in other key
areas too: there was
nothing under the
“General Health
Observations” since
there was no
knowledge of the
criteria used and
therefore no way to
assess the (lack of)
findings this was a
Fail.

Under the heading
“Direct and Indirect
Hormone Factor” the
study failed here
too along with this
nonsense gem that we
the people have
heard a tad too many
times in the last 20
years or so (Vioxx
anyone? rBGH
anyone?)…..here it
is then: “ No
biologically
relevant differences
were detected in the
levels of gene
product/salmon
growth
hormone,”……but
again: this is based
on sloppy science
and data deprived
data…insufficient
evidence (empty
boxes on forms)
where there should
have been a notation
saying” SEE ATTACHED
FOR COMPREHENSIVE
DATA”…at the very
least. The hormone
study (by the way)
was statistically
irrelevant because:

1.
The fish were all
under 2 ounces, when
2 ounces is the
minimum needed to
test the hormone
levels

2. The fish
should have been
tested at their
market size, that is
to say, at the size
they would be when
eaten!

Frankly, people
just don’t EAT 2
ounce salmon!

FDA should have
dismissed this study
as irrelevant to the
question of the
direct food
consumption risk,
based on the guppy
antics of the
samples. This is the
equivalent of
testing a 6 year old
girl for ovulation
hormone activity as
a marker against
which to treat her
mother….it is simply
irrelevant and of no
scientific value or
consequence!

Further, the
growth hormone is
IGF and DOES pose a
risk to humans, due
in part to the
raised levels of IGF
and other growth
hormones in ALL food
producing animals.
The interesting
thing here is that
the FDA itself (in
this assessment)
admits mush by
noting, “ IGF levels
are closely linked
to growth
hormones….may pose a
hazard to
humans…..has been
considered a hazard
for human
consumption
following increased
growth hormone
levels in in food
producing animals (a
reference to the
issue of IGF-1
levels in milk from
cows treated with a
recombinant bovine
growth hormone aka
rbGH ) SO,
fraudulent science
meets….MORE
fraudulent science!

Something
else that we the
people should be
questioning on a
deeper level at this
time is this: If the
stated reason for
creating a
genetically
engineered salmon is
to speed up the
growing time of the
salmon…..and if the
gene splice is
occurring with the
Chinook BECAUSE of
the Chinooks rapid
growth cycle…….then
WHY is it STILL
necessary to add a
GROWTH HORMONE to
this creation?
Doesn’t the one
negate the necessity
of the other, or
vice versa….?

FDA should have
dismissed this study
the first chance
they got (despite
initial squeals from
AquaBounty about
“proprietary
information and
attempts to suppress
the data)yes, can
you believe that?
And now CEO Stotish
is criticizing the
senators, NOT the
FDA…….although
officially of course
FDA has not “had a
chance to review the
study” and
AquaBounty has not
had a chance to
defend it’s
“science-based”
multi million dollar
frankenfishsalmoneelthing.
Clearly though an
agreement has been
reached, a
compromise made, a
deal struck. With or
without spending
from “appropriated
funds” the FDA has
made their feelings
(and approval ) of
AquaBountyfrankenfishsalmoneelthing
quite clear, have
they not?

Which brings me
to something we
should all be aware
of: the primary
reason why the FDA
is proposing to
approve the
transgenic DNA for
the salmon as a New
Animal Drug, and
not, let’s say as a
“genetically
engineered fish
organism” is
simple….

Once
approved, a NAD will
have NO POST Market
Surveillance! As a
product NOT required
to be labeled (as a
GMO product) the
transgenicfrankenfishsalmoneelthing
will simply disperse
across America, into
supermarkets,
restaurants, fish
(soup) stocks, pet
food and (heaven
forbid!) into Fish
Oil supplements
(omegas). (That is,
until the proposed
FDA ban on
supplements takes
hold and grows to
include fish oils).
But that is a
different kettle of
fish entirely!

AquaBounty/AquaVantage
and 37 OTHER
industry
heavyweights want to
accuse the
congress/senate of
holding the
“scientists at FDA”
back from doing
their jobs of
approving this? They
want to accuse the
senate/congress of
holding Science
hostage to politics?
Over this
irrelevant,
fraudulent piece of
quassi pseudo
science?

Given
that Monsanto
heavyweight and
legal representative
Michael Taylor has
revolved through the
doors of the FDA and
Monsanto so many
times that even HE
must have trouble
remembering which
building his current
office is situated
in (for now he is
the FDA “ Food Czar,
courtesy of our
current president,
in whose garden
grows the most
lavish un-permitted
“ Victory
garden”….would the
Green Police really
stop there? One has
to wonder, but I
digress…..)

Yes, given that
Taylor is the
current food czar,
and given his
moribund appetite
for creating the pro
biotech regulations
(when working as
legal council for
Monsanto) that the
industry would lobby
for, and his
subsequent
implementation of
those laws (once
niftily ensconced on
his “FDA throne”)
(during one of many
office changes)
there is no doubt
that he is
salivating at the
chance to approve
the
transgenicfrankenfishsalmoneelthing
so revered by the
Biotechnology
Industry
Organization (BOI)
that they had to
write a letter to
the House full of
warnings and
undercurrents that,
in some measure
could, and should,
be construed as a
threat.

According to
public interest
attorney Steven
Druker, who has
studied the FDA’s
internal files,
“During Mr. Taylor’s
tenure as Deputy
Commissioner,
references to the
unintended negative
effects of
bioengineering were
progressively
deleted from drafts
of the policy
statements (over the
protests of agency
scientists) and a
final statement was
issued claiming that
(a) GM foods are no
riskier than others
and (b) that the
agency had no
information to the
contrary.”

When
the FDA announced
it’s original policy
on GMO, the public
was not aware of any
internal dissent.
The policy boldly
claimed that there
was no information
to indicate that GM
foods were different
or more risky than
natural varieties.
Since the public
generally trusted
the FDA, they
assumed that no such
risks existed. But,
nearly a decade
later, a lawsuit
would make public –
for the first time –
the agencies
internal documents –
and they told a
very, very different
story.

A man from a
biotech company told
author Michael
Pollan, (that the
biotech company)”
should not have to
vouchsafe the safety
of biotech food. Our
interest is in
selling as much of
it as possible.
Assuring its safety
is the FDA’s job”.

That man was
Phil Angell,
Director of
Corporate
Communications for
Monsanto.

AquaBounty/
AquVantage……Monsanto…….FDA….
All share one thing
in common:
Fraudulent Science.

World Food Day:
Monsanto,
Frankenfish,
Occupy Wall
Street

Today is
World Food
Day.

Occupy Wall
Street isn’t
only about
the banks.
Since it
also focuses
on corporate
greed, our
entire food
system is
built on
greed.

Corporation
goliaths
spend
millions on
lobbying
lawmakers.
“Money
talks;
nobody
walks,” as
the saying
goes. One
hand reaches
out with the
cash wanting
to advance
their
adgenda.
Another hand
reaches
back, with
it’s own
adgenda in
mind, and
takes the
money. The
corporation
just got
what it
wanted:
influence in
perhaps the
FDA, USDA,
EPA or the
justice
system. Laws
get changed
or weakened,
a product
approved, a
new
appointee
who is in
the
corporation’s
pocket, or
someone in a
federal
agency
looking the
other way,
dismissing
studies or
making
reports
disappear.
There were
two winners
in this –
corporate
America and
the
government.
The losers
far
outnumber
them; they
are the
millions of
people in
this
country.

Time to
SPEAK OUT
AGAINST
companies
like
MONSANTO.
They are out
to control
the world’s
food. With
their GMO
(genetically
modified
crops)
they’ve
damaged the
ecosystem
with overuse
of Round-Up,
caused the
rise of
‘super
weeds’ which
are now
resistant to
Round Up.
They have
sued small
farmers for
‘patent
infringement’
because the
GM has
cross-pollinated
with non GM
and have
endangered
the organic
crops and
the organic
industry.

Their push
into Latin
America will
destroy the
centuries-old
and
venerated
maize crop.
They are
inundating
Africa and
the Middle
East,
selling poor
farmers with
their pitch
that GMOs
will help
them feed
their
starving
families. In
reality it
will tie
them to
Monsanto for
seed and
this
dangerous
chemical,
glyphosate.

Round-up is
being
reformulated
to be
stronger and
more deadly
to both
weeds and
the
eco-system.
Rumor has it
that maybe
2-4-D,
Atrazine
(also known
as Agent
Orange)
could be
added to
strenghthen
the mix.
Perhaps the
recipe will
contain some
older
chemicals.
Whatever
Monsanto
does,
however, it
will just
start
another
round of
chemical
resistance.

GMO Salmon,
by
Aqua Bounty,
also known
as
“Frankenfish”
is up for
approval by
the FDA. It
is designed
to grow 2 or
three times
as big as
the wild
fish. This
in itself is
totally
tampering
with nature
(like other
GM products)
but even
more
dangerous.
Their
Frankenfish
will be the
first living
thing to be
genetically
modified and
it frightens
me. There is
NO telling
what would
happen (and
it’s likely
to) if a GM
salmon got
into the
wild
population.
Wild salmon
would
probably be
decimated
before long
as these
‘creatures’
would have
the ability
to over
populate
them.

More and
more
research is
indicating
that GMO
foods are
unhealthy,
cause
numerous
conditions
and are
highly
detrimental
to health.
To learn
more about
GMOs, go to:
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/

=================================================

Soros is a funder of Earthjustice, that litigates for PCFFA and IFR and
other KBRA NGO's.

================================================

Soros buys 897,813
Monsanto shares,
11/17/10 St. Louis Business Journal,
"Billionaire
investor
George Soros’ hedge fund bought
897,813 shares of Monsanto — his
second-largest holding on a dollar basis
— during the third quarter, The Wall
Street Journal reports. The position is
now valued at $312.6 million."

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
section 107, any copyrighted material
herein is distributed without profit or
payment to those who have expressed a
prior interest in receiving this
information for non-profit research and
educational purposes only. For more
information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml